State editorial roundup

Published 6:00 pm, Sunday, February 17, 2008

It's an easy bet that the Texas House speaker's race next session will be a knock-down-drag-out political drama with folks champing to have their say.

But not so quick. Put down that pen, because you might face one year in jail and a $4,000 fine for speaking your mind.

Yes, you read that correctly. Since 1973, it's been a misdemeanor for people other than the speaker candidates to spend more than $100 on written communication to voice an opinion in the House speaker's race. That includes the media. Under the law although never enforced an editorial in this newspaper commenting on the speaker's race might be deemed a misdemeanor. Also in violation might be an avid letter writer, a group distributing printed leaflets, perhaps even e-mailed correspondence.

This is one issue in which conservative and liberal groups are in lockstep. The Texas Eagle Forum PAC, the American Civil Liberties Union and the Free Market Foundation have sued to have the measure declared an unconstitutional violation of free speech.

Agreed. This newspaper favors limiting the influence of money in politics. And one can see why lawmakers in 1973, with the memory of then-speaker Gus Mutscher and Houston's infamous Sharpstown scandal still fresh, thought this might control outside influence on the speaker's race.

But this law actually stands to stifle debate and begs to be abused. And it doesn't control big donors, who will still exert influence through campaign contributions. Yet others who want to speak on behalf of a candidate, say, through letters of support to House members, risk running afoul of the law.

Repeal of this law will make it easier for organized political groups such as the plaintiffs in this case to weigh in on the speaker's race. But that's OK. Though sometimes messy, free speech is necessary.

The speaker's post is one of the most powerful jobs in Texas government and deserves an opinion free-for-all. Let the debate begin.

Austin American-Statesman on the Senate's ban of American intelligence's use of torture:

The U.S. Senate voted 51-45 last week to ban American intelligence agencies from using torture, particularly a form called waterboarding but also extreme sleep or sensory deprivation. The House approved the ban late last year. President Bush, who says the United States doesnt torture, strongly objects to the proposed ban.

The Senate majority was right, and it shouldnt back down from any veto threat. If the president wants to play word games and defend torture, make him spell it out. His administration continues to duck and weave when asked specifically whether waterboarding is already illegal.

Theres a simple comparison here: The United States would strongly denounce any nation or terrorist group that used waterboarding or other such torture techniques on U.S. captives, whether they were tourists snatched on vacation or military pilots who had bombed targets. The world, however, would understandably dismiss our complaint as hypocritical if it knew that we use such techniques ourselves - as we have. In fact, it would be hypocritical.

Waterboarding is used to terrify captive, helpless suspects - who may or may not be guilty, may or may not actually know something - into giving information by using water to cut off their breathing and make them think they are drowning. Theres no guarantee that the captive who agrees to talk is telling the truth; waterboarding is so effective in terrifying a captive with the fear of imminent death, some experts have said, that victims will say anything to make it stop.

The U.S. military already has banned the use of waterboarding and other extreme tactics against captives, as has the Federal Bureau of Investigation. But if waterboarding and the like are OK for the Central Intelligence Agency, why not use it on prisoners of war? Or you, if the FBI arrests you and you wont answer agents questions?

The United States cannot allow that to happen if we want to remain better than our enemies and continue serving as a beacon of democracy and a bulwark of human rights for the rest of the world. We must not try to justify torture, no matter what words are used to camouflage it as something less.

Obesity is a national scourge, and one way to kill the beast is to stop feeding it.

That means through diet and exercise, a common-sense approach that seemed foreign to a trio of legislators in Mississippi.

The three state representatives two Republicans and one Democrat introduced a bill that would have made it illegal for state-licensed restaurants to serve obese customers, according to news reports.

Almost 35 percent of American adults were obese in 2004, compared to about 23 percent 10 years earlier, according to the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey.

In Mississippi, the number of obese adults is expected to reach 50 percent by 2015.

Those figures are alarming, but the latest attempt to address the problem was just as alarming.

In addition to abridging the rights of both patrons and businesses in a free marketplace, the bill was simply wrongheaded, entrusting restaurants to determine the body mass index of customers a task best left to health experts.

And where would this kind of heavy-handedness have ended?

The legislators did not deal with the penalties an eatery would have faced if it served an obese customer, which may be a moot point: The bill was so outrageous that it did not even reach the floor for debate.

The sole benefit now will be if the ill-fated bill sparks a discussion a serious discussion on how to address this problem.

Sen. Hillary Clinton and her PR machine could not possibly put a positive spin on her devastating Potomac primary losses Tuesday, as she was bested almost 2-1 by Sen. Barack Obama in Virginia, a state where the Clinton team was hoping for an upset victory. Obama also won in Maryland, with 60 percent of the vote, and in the District of Columbia, with 75 percent of the vote. He has a clear, albeit small, delegate lead, and is heading toward the final primaries with a great deal of momentum.

Thats not all. Last weekend, the Illinois senator won strong victories in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington State and Maine. Hes favored in progressive Wisconsin and ethnically diverse Hawaii, although Clinton is favored in the delegate-rich states of Texas and Ohio. Those leads could be softening under positive publicity from Obamas winning streak.

The bad news was deep for Clinton. As the Washington Post reported, Obama won among black voters, white voters, among the affluent and the less-affluent. He won among the young, and he split older voters. He won independents and Democrats. Plus, Obama has shown that he can win in states in all geographic regions of the country.

Clinton has fired her campaign manager, and thats a sure sign of a campaign that is struggling. But the race is still close, with superdelegates probably holding the nomination in their hands.

Given that those delegates are elected officials whose votes are not tied to election results, this has long been viewed as something that will favor Clinton.

Yet Ron Fournier of the Associated Press argues that the Clintons might not hold an advantage with the superdelegates. "For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival," he wrote. "She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon.

Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clintons campaign, say many party leaders A wont hesitate to ditch (her) for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground."

It would be foolish to count Clinton out at this point. But it is pleasant to watch her squirm, although we are eager to hear Obama begin to detail a policy plan that has a few more specifics beyond his appeal to "change," "hope" and other ill-defined terms.

On the Republican side, Sen. John McCain fought back a surprisingly strong challenge by Mike Huckabee the result of a strong protest vote from many Republicans upset at the likely nomination of a man with a history of liberal policies.

What a strange election. Its fun to watch, but its unsettling to consider that one of these big-government advocates will most certainly occupy the White House.

Lubbock Avalanche-Journal on President's Day, the difficulty of holding the office:

Many adults remember celebrating the Feb. 12 birthday of Abraham Lincoln and the Feb. 22 birthday of George Washington each year when they were children.

The closeness of the birth dates of the two great presidents linked them together in the minds of many Americans. Washington's birthday was a national holiday - and it still is, although today it generally is called Presidents' Day and has been expanded to honor all presidents.

While we sometimes regret the eroding of individual recognition of Washington and Lincoln, having a holiday to recognize all presidents is not a bad thing.

The office of president is a very difficult job that can also be a dangerous one. Four of our 43 presidents - Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley and John F. Kennedy - were assassinated in office. Others, such as Gerald Ford and especially Ronald Reagan, who was seriously wounded, had narrow escapes.

Four presidents - William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Warren G. Harding and Franklin D. Roosevelt - died of natural causes while in office.

Most presidents lived out their terms of office, but they nonetheless devoted significant portions of their lives to serving their country as president.

Each president faced a unique set of challenges and difficulties in office. Most presidents were called upon to make tough decisions that alienated part of the public against them, and all of them were controversial in the eyes of at least some of their countrymen.

America's presidents have varied greatly in the quality of leadership they have offered, but from the strongest successes to the controversial failures, they all were part of the development of our nation.

When the next Presidents' Day rolls around, America will have a new president living in the White House. That person, the 44th U.S. president, will face opposition from the first moment he or she takes office and will endure criticism that will last long after the 45th president has taken up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

It is an extremely difficult job in which it is impossible to please everyone.

Not every president has the stature of George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, but they all have earned their places in history, and they deserve recognition from their nation.